KFC's "bunless" sandwich

[garbon]

Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat.  It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.

Eating a supersized meal at McD's is not a necessary activity.

[Sheilbh]

Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat.  It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.

I agree.  But do they have to have poor diets?

I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare.  Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic.  He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford.  While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.

I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads.  But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.

[garbon]

Besides, smoking and drinking are at the heart of what it means to be human.

[ulmont]

FYI, smokers' lifetime medical costs are less than nonsmokers due to the early heart attacks and massive cancer.  If you want to keep costs down, hand your buddy a pack or two.

[Sheilbh]

FYI, smokers' lifetime medical costs are less than nonsmokers due to the early heart attacks and massive cancer.

I'd always wondered about that.  Thanks

[dps]

Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat.  It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.

I agree.  But do they have to have poor diets?

I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare.  Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic.  He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford.  While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.

I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads.  But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.

Well, trying to eat healthier foods and to avoid the least healthy ones is more expensive and time-consuming.  But eating smaller portions is less expenive, so it cuts both ways.

[DisturbedPervert]

There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods.  What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.

[dps]

There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods.  What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers.  I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.

[Jaron]

There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods.  What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers.  I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.

DP = owned.

FAT PEOPLE RULE, SKINNY PEOPLE DROOL

[DisturbedPervert]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers.  I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.

1 whopper with cheese 760 calories.  You could even eat two. 

[dps]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers.  I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.

1 whopper with cheese 760 calories.  You could even eat two. 

I don't like cheese on my burgers.  Well, I do sometimes, but that processed stuff that fast food restaurants call cheese is nasty.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but a big portion on the calories in a whopper comes from the mayo, so if you want to eat 'em without too big an impact on your weight, leave off the mayo.

[Strix]

There's an easy way for people to lose weight if they can't afford eating organic salads from Whole Foods.  What ever it is that you normally eat, shove less of it in your mouth.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could lose weight on a diet of nothing but BK Whoppers.  I'd just have to limit how many of them I eat.

Buy the Junior instead of the Triple Whopper. 

[Malthus]

Well, no one has to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but everyone has to eat.  It seems more unfair to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in a necessary activity to excess than to penalize those who damage their health by engaging in unnecessary activities.

I agree.  But do they have to have poor diets?

I'm really undecided on the issue of penalising people for their lifestyle in healthcare.  Largely because I agree with John Reid, who was our Health Minister a few years ago and himself an ex-smoker and ex-alcoholic.  He got into a bit of a storm because he basically said penalising smokers was in effect middle class puritanism, because a ciggy was a real pleasure that the poor could afford.  While we should reduce smoking and should try and educate people to its health costs and we should reduce obesity and educate people on how to eat well, the truth is that a fag, a pint and a kebab are affordable pleasures, overwhelmingly enjoyed by the poorer sections of society.

I think it'd be great if we stopped smoking, drank only a glass of red a day and ate delicious, ideally organic, local and seasonal salads.  But at the minute I think that it's largely something the middle class and the wealthy can afford more than the poor.

To my mind, adding some sort of calculation of the relative "morality" of various lifestyle choices to the mix of what ought to be publicly safety-netted  is a legal, ethical and accounting morass which we would be well advised to avoid. Particularly as the desions are bound to be made on political grounds and not on any hard-headed objective basis. 

[Berkut]

It sounds good in theory, but it opens up a mess of other issues.

What about people who do not take their vitamins? What about people who engage in dangerous activities like driving cars? Why should people who don't drive cars have to pay for those who do?

I am with Malthus on this - the entire idea is pretty silly. There is no way you can possibly start down that road without ending up somewhere we don't want to be.

[saskganesh]

eating healthy is cheap. just shop the specials, eat lower on the food chain, spend a bit of time cooking, and read a bit on nutrition. that's it.